Associations Between Hearing Loss, Loneliness, and Social Isolation: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hearing loss is highly prevalent among older adults, as is occurrences of loneliness and social isolation. Both loneliness and social isolation are also associated with insidious outcomes such as earlier mortality from all-causes and higher prevalence of chronic comorbidities. The purpose of this review is to synthesize published investigations that report on the associations between hearing loss with loneliness and social isolation. A systematic search through PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library identified an initial total of 2495 references. Two independent reviewers screened articles for inclusion, with a third reviewer adjudicating. Studies published in English of older adults with hearing loss that also assessed loneliness and/or social isolation using a validated measure were included. Investigators used a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to appraise study quality. A final total of 14 articles were included in the review. The majority (12/14) were cross-sectional in design. Assessment methods were varied across hearing status, loneliness, and social isolation. Despite this heterogeneity, most multivariable adjusted investigations revealed that hearing loss was significantly associated with higher risks for both phenomena. Several studies also revealed this association to vary across gender, with women showing a stronger association than men. Our findings indicate that hearing loss is associated with both loneliness and social isolation, which have important implications for the cognitive and psychosocial health of older adults. Future investigations should examine possible underlying mechanisms of these relationships, as well as the efficacy of interventions through aural rehabilitation programs in addressing loneliness and social isolation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".